490
You can’t even pay people to have more kids
(www.vox.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
490 points (96.9% liked)
News
23655 readers
3297 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Less people means less waste and less fossil fuel consumption. This is not a bad thing.
-corpo douche, maybe.
It is a bad thing if you live in a country with a robust social system that is paid for through taxes and a below-replacement birth rate.
Like, we don't need "more" people, but we need to keep the population stable to make sure the disabled and elderly can live well. Because someone has to bear the cost, and we can't all be Norwegian.
Sounds like a good reason to tax the wealthy and corporations at a higher rate. You could even have a global proportional tax rate if the will was there.
When you're looking at recurring expenses like welfare, you need the incoming money to be there as well for the math to work. The wealthy and the corporations aren't an unlimited pot, particularly at the scale of national welfare. Social security spent 1.5 trillion dollars in the 2023 fiscal year. You could entirely liquidate Apple, pretend that doing so wouldn't collapse its value, and that would pay for less than two years of Social Security, to say nothing of other welfare programs, and this is just America.
You also have to consider that lower population growth can also result in lower corporate profits, causing there to be less money available for you to tax in the first place. At the scale of an entire country's population, taxing the wealthy doesn't go as far as people think.
LOL, we don't need to liquidate Apple. Current projections are that if NOTHING is done to reform social security, the trust fund will run out in 2033, and we will be able to pay out about 77% of benefits via annual revenues the following year, down to 65% in 2096. The exact percentage varies based on revenue and population trends, but we're talking about the majority of social security benefits being payable indefinitely, if nothing is done to reform it.
We could fill the gap and keep the trust fund going while paying out 100% of benefits by simply raising the cap for wages subject to the social security tax.
This social security hysteria shows how effective right wing propaganda has been at convincing all of society that government can't do anything. There are multiple options for saving the trust fund. Congress just needs to pick one and do it. The problem is that half of congress wants the elderly to starve to death.
Removing the cap doesn't actually solve the problem; it only delays it. Per a Congressional Research Service report, eliminating the cap today would still have the fund be depleted in 2054. You still have to raise the rate or reduce benefits in order to make the numbers work.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32896
That's to say nothing about how Social Security is objectively a very poor retirement plan and the average person would do much better by simply putting the money into any random total market fund instead, but that's another topic.
I know no one likes maintenance, but it's necessary. We reformed social security in 1981. We can do it again now, and we can do it again before 2054. I'd propose eliminating the taxable income cap and means testing benefits before we think about raising the rates or the retirement age again.
Social Security keeps over 20 million people out of poverty. Frankly, I don't give a shit about what's better for people who've had the means and the opportunity to save for retirement independently (of which I am one). We're talking about people who don't have enough to begin with. If you eliminated social security, assuming employers didn't just pocket the 6.2% and passed it on to their workers, the working poor would use that money for sustenance, not savings.
To be clear, I'm not actually against removing the cap, means-testing the benefits, or anything else. However, the political will for that sort of thing isn't really there, especially because it would represent a non-trivial tax increase on the kind of upper middle class vaguely moderate suburbanites that tend to swing elections.
My main qualm is that Social Security simultaneously attempts to be a mandatory government retirement plan and a welfare system and doesn't do a particularly good job at either of those things. As a retirement plan, pretty much any generic investment plan outperforms it, while at the same time, its ability to be an effective elderly welfare system is hugely hampered by this political perception of it as an "earned" retirement benefit as well as its less than efficient administration.
My main point here is that it's not accurate to say that there's just "one weird trick!" that cleanly solves Social Security forever. Even raising or eliminating the cap would come with very significant political pushback from an annoyingly important and temperamental voting block.
That may be a problem... but our global carbon footprint is a much bigger problem, and part of what can help reduce that is reducing the size of the population.
A cursory search suggests that global population is expected to peak sometime around 2090, so an actual reduction in population really can't be a primary component of our mitigation strategy relative to a general shift towards green energy. By the time we reach that point, we've either solved it or solidly doomed ourselves, population be damned.
Don’t argue with economically illiterate people, they’ll never learn.
Eh, depends on the source and intentionality of the illiteracy. I've had good conversations with Mr. FlyingSquid before, and I was myself a lot more ignorant in the past. A lot of people genuinely don't know what they don't know and believe, for example, that it's possible to create a UK-style NHS by simply taxing the billionaires and corporations a little bit more. When you see stats about wealth inequality, it's easy to find yourself believing that they can do essentially anything, and people are bad at intuitively understanding the scale of national populations.
Then let’s keep it stable at a lower number than it currently is.
Here's today's friendly reminder that the economy is made up, and can be redesigned to better serve humanity
There are lots of people who are willing to endure a dangerous journey in order to become part of a stable, safe society in a country that isn't torn up by a war or ruled by despots, kleptocrats or terrorists.
Somehow when these people reach to a country desperately trying to grow its population (read: have more workforce and taxpayers), we tend to ostracize them, deny them opportunities, make it hard for them to integrate and generally be hostile towards them on both individual and systemic levels. And then scratch our collective heads why we have problems with the "others".
Curious species the human is. No wonder the extraterrestials from the Galactic Society never visit us and try their hardest to hide their existence from us😞
“… robots…. We’ll make robots to do all the work. Then we won’t need the stupid poors.”
-rich guys